IL pension reform. Thoughts? (Union: house, casino, disposal)

[RiverRise]

Originally Posted by SJaye

However, the argument that someone should return their Social Security money to the government or else be a hypocrite is utter &*#$ because that does not change the fact that this person had their money drawn into the system against their wishes without even being consulted. It would be one thing to give them all of that money (that they earned) back and say, "don't expect any help from Government when you need it", but quite another to tell them that their only other alternative to being mad at the system is to just accept that they are being fleeced for 6.2% of their paycheck and not let out a peep- sounds a lot like speech/tought control to me.

Just look at it as your cost to live in America, like taxes. If someone is so against "socialist" programs I think a biggert statement would be to never use them. The excuse of "well, I never had a say!" is irrelevant. Do you protest your car insurance? Probably not, but it's the price you pay for the convenience of owning a vehicle.

[vicnice]

Originally Posted by cubssoxfan

If that's how you feel, then you need to return all your socila security earnings to the US Government. And do not ever apply for unemployment insurance. And when you are older and qualify for Medicare and Medicaid, turn those down. Otherwise you are a hypocrite. Unions came to be because of capitalism and was a movement to correct the abuses of unchecked(at the time) abuses by employers. Do you value weekends off? 40 hour work weeks? Limits on child labor and minimum age to work? Do you value safe work environments? Guess what, these came to being in large part due to organized labor. Pensions eveolved because of wage freezes instituted by FDR. They were a way around to recruit/reward good employees.

So lets break down my response, and do it without emotion.

I dont believe in Unions nor in pensions. This is a capaitalist society and those are socialist programs. I do believe in fair treatment, so some aspects of unions are needed, but fleecing taxpayers to continue paying benefits because you didnt make enough is wrong. Go get a better education.

This is exactly why those jobs are being shipped overseas!

I dont believe in unions, or in pensions. Unions are like gangs, and gangs are run by humans, and when humans get too much power they go out of control. Corporations have anti monopoly laws for a reason to prevent this out of control human behavior. Unions should have monopoly laws as well and especially they should be in affect when they are formed in providing service to a corporation.

I am a fan of union busting....but not a fan of out of control corporations. We need balance.

I do believe in fair treatment, so some aspects of unions are needed. Just like Unions can get out of control, so can corporations.

[chet everett]

Too many folks are missing a HUGE point here. Madigan and Cullerton and the rest of the theiving bums have been in power in Springpatch for DECADES. These jokers SPECIFICIALLY wrote in these immoral loopholes for THEIR PALS THAT DONATE TO THEIR CAMPAIGN FUNDS to remain in office by essentially buying the votes of the sheep that listen to their union bosses.

The lawmakers were caught RED HANDED.

Of course they'll undo these loop holes now. For one they've so gerrymandered the districting that there are no opponents to their re-election insde their crooked little districts. For two they'll write new loop holes into whatever laws that send up to the dimwitted Quinn to sign.

Believe me this is far from the end of the fleecing that goes on when you have so much power concentrated into so few hand for so long.


The reason that this nonsense was stopped now is so that there can be a dog and pony show about "good government" in time to convince enough stoonads to punch the ballot so that the same old immoral scum can again increase taxes to keep fattening up the loafers that make up the new "patronage army" -- now it is not just guys that know somebody, but the whole unionized state workforce...

[vicnice]

Originally Posted by SJaye

Isn't it somewhat naive to assume that someone who opposes pensions/ social security supports corporate welfare? It is ideologically inconsistent, and a true supporter of free markets opposes pensions (provided by Government) and social security, as well as corporate welfare. I know there are a lot of hippocrates out there with inconsistent viewpoints, but I think we all owe it someone to give them a chance to give their opinion on something before making an assumption about it and then calling them names about it.

Amen.

Want some freedom fries you commie terrorist!!!

I am anti union in their current state because they are abusive. Thats not a crazy statement.

[cubssoxfan]

Originally Posted by SJaye

Pensions are fine as long as they are provided by an employer as an incentive to recruit quality labor. I think it is government pension that have gotten out of hand. Unions are fine too, actually most likely necessary to check the greed of those higher up in a corporation. However, it is when they represent government employees, and/or use government to attain more money and power at the expense of the taxpayer that it get harder to support them.

However, the argument that someone should return their Social Security money to the government or else be a hypocrite is utter &*#$ because that does not change the fact that this person had their money drawn into the system against their wishes without even being consulted. It would be one thing to give them all of that money (that they earned) back and say, "don't expect any help from Government when you need it", but quite another to tell them that their only other alternative to being mad at the system is to just accept that they are being fleeced for 6.2% of their paycheck and not let out a peep- sounds a lot like speech/tought control to me.

Good points. I said it because the poster I responded to said Unions were socialist. Well one has a choice to work in a non-union shop, or a "right to work" state or to enter a profession where union membership is not required. However, as you pointed out, we have no choice regarding SS; it comes out whether we want to be part of the plan or not. So which one is socialist? SS is.

[SJaye]

Originally Posted by RiverRise

Just look at it as your cost to live in America, like taxes. If someone is so against "socialist" programs I think a biggert statement would be to never use them. The excuse of "well, I never had a say!" is irrelevant. Do you protest your car insurance? Probably not, but it's the price you pay for the convenience of owning a vehicle.

How is it irrelevant? That 6.2% is still taken out and would not be taken out if it weren't for the program. Not to mention that employer portion of the contribution which may or may not have been part of your salary had they not had to contribute. I am going to come rob your house, but you moved to a neighborhood with crime, so just think of it as part of cost of living in a city ... are you still mad at me?

[SJaye]

Originally Posted by cubssoxfan

Good points. I said it because the poster I responded to said Unions were socialist. Well one has a choice to work in a non-union shop, or a "right to work" state or to enter a profession where union membership is not required. However, as you pointed out, we have no choice regarding SS; it comes out whether we want to be part of the plan or not. So which one is socialist? SS is.

Yeah, I agree that it is not socialist for people to voluntarily decide to bargain with the management of their company collectively.

[Huckleberry3911948]

amazing the people that deal with the garbage we leave on the street, drugs gangs rotten kids, the unemployable, the unteachable, u know the ones who try to clean it up, the teachers, police and social workers. after those civil servants work 30 years if they dont drop dead from a heart attack or worse b4, when its time to get their pension u dont wana pay them. i mean u want the services but u dont wana pay. kinda like renters huh, wana nice place but dont wana pay.

[RiverRise]

Originally Posted by SJaye

How is it irrelevant? That 6.2% is still taken out and would not be taken out if it weren't for the program. Not to mention that employer portion of the contribution which may or may not have been part of your salary had they not had to contribute. I am going to come rob your house, but you moved to a neighborhood with crime, so just think of it as part of cost of living in a city ... are you still mad at me?

Well...it is. I have the right to be mad, but I also have to realize the area I CHOSE to live in was a high crime area, thus the possibility was higher.

Americans whine too much. I think every American should be shipped off to a "developing" nation for a year for experience abroad. Maybe then you'll realize how fortunate you are simply by being born in this country.

[MannheimMadman]

Originally Posted by Huckleberry3911948

amazing the people that deal with the garbage we leave on the street, drugs gangs rotten kids, the unemployable, the unteachable, u know the ones who try to clean it up, the teachers, police and social workers. after those civil servants work 30 years if they dont drop dead from a heart attack or worse b4, when its time to get their pension u dont wana pay them. i mean u want the services but u dont wana pay. kinda like renters huh, wana nice place but dont wana pay.

People don't want to pay the piper because it's a huge burden on the tax-payer. In good times, nobody notices. That's how people were able to sweep the floor for $17/hr.

Giving someone their due because of the law is how it works. Changing the law due to a crazy loophole is an entirely different argument.

I have no idea how you can compare renters to this situation.